RIP Eileen Brennan

Unfortunately I did not feel well at all last night so I did not watch anything; I feel better now but I have to be out the door doing something for the rest of today, so I'll be back tomorrow night where I will watch and review a movie featuring the late Brennan. I haven't seen too much of her work unfortunately but I will revisit one of her most memorable roles for the first time in too long.

Will God Forgive Me For Watching Only God Forgives?

Only God Forgives (2013)

36% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 112 reviews)


Runtime: 89 minutes


Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn


Starring: Ryan Gosling, Vithaya Pansringram, Kristin Scott Thomas, Yayaying Rhatha Phongham


From: Many different production companies, including Gaumont and Wild Bunch


You know, I did not think that I'd see another movie this year that would made me as angry as Hatchet 3 did, but something else I spent money on via Xbox Video (too much money, as it turns out in hindsight) has ruined my day, and it was this movie, one that is extremely polarizing, whether you look it up on Letterboxd (more on that later), IMDb, or various messageboards. This movie got walk-outs and was heavily booed at Cannes once it finished.


I now know why. What a thoroughly pointless, repugnant, unappealing movie this is!


To copy the plot description from the IMDb (which does a better job of explaining the plot than the actual movie does in presenting it):


“Bangkok. Ten years ago Julian killed a man and went on the run. Now he manages a Thai boxing club as a front for a drugs operation. Respected in the criminal underworld, deep inside, he feels empty. When Julian's brother murders an underage prostitute, the police call on retired cop Chang - the Angel of Vengeance. Chang allows the father to kill his daughter's murderer, then 'restores order' by chopping off the man's right hand. Julian's mother Crystal - the head of a powerful criminal organization - arrives in Bangkok to collect her son's body. She dispatches Julian to find his killers and 'raise hell'”


After I finish giving my brief thoughts I am going to copy and paste a LONG review of this movie from someone on Letterboxd known as Gustav Roman. I am not pals with him on there or even read any of his other reviews. It just so happens that he explains in masterful detail (I don't agree with all of it; just most of it) why this was so awful a movie-watching experience. That will be in italics. Before that, my thoughs...


You can have a movie look pretty, be lit up colorfully to set up a mood, and all that-and even have a nice musical score-but when you have an utterly pointless movie filled with absolutely repellant characters, a pointless story that is not realistic at all, a complete blank slate for a lead character (except for the fact that he's p*ssy-whipped by his own mom), AND my new least-favorite antagonist of all-time* (I mean that in a bad way; Danielle Harris as Marybeth in the aforementioned Hatchet 3 is still my least-favorite character as she was supposed to be the hero), then you're going to have a movie I thought was God-awful and a complete waste of time, even with some amusing moments.

* Replacing Justin Hammer, as portrayed by Sam Rockwell in Iron Man 2.


Honestly, Thomas as the criminal boss was SO unappealing in a way that will turn you off and make you want to shut off the movie. If I hadn't spent 560 Xbox Points to rent it for today, that's what I would have done! She's racist, yells at everyone and is a complete bitch... just the absolute worst and not the sort of character I ever need to see again. Plus, having somehow made it through Hatchet 3 meant that I had to make it through this too. Nothing happened at the end that made it worth the Battan Death March of a journey.

Excuse my language but what artsy-fartsy bullshit this was! I guess I should expect as much when (according to IMDb) the director said he made this because "he got the idea for the film while his wife was pregnant with their second daughter. He felt very existentialistic and felt he had much anger and violence in him, but did not know how to let it out. Suddenly he had the idea that the definite person to hold all the answers to existential questions and life's problems where God and imagined himself having a physical fight with God."


Christ!

Now, onto Gustav's comments. I'll be back Wednesday afternoon, hopefully with something that did not enrage me.


There are films that are artsy, thought-provoking, deep and complex; then there are films that are immature, exploitative, dumb and mindless. 'Only God Forgives' however, is a film of the worst kind. It is a film that is immature, exploitative and mindless but it thinks that it is a thought-provoking and complex masterpiece. It is a film that thinks that because its characters are morally ambiguous that they are somehow brilliantly written. It's a film that thinks that it can it can somehow get away with a non-existing story because it is "visually immersive and surreal enough". It is a film that shows horribly grotesque violence, not to prove a point or manipulate the audience, but just because it looks cool. "Wow, that blood really looks amazing dripping down that wall! And wow, look at how still and unflinching Ryan Gosling is while that prostitute masturbates!" This film is one of the most vile, meaningless and nauseating excuses for "art" that I have even seen.

I came into this movie with hardly any expectations. I was excited but I was not expecting (as the trailer suggested) a sequel to "Drive". I was just wanting this film to be a solid director/actor follow-up and a different experience. I was thinking that this film if anything would be a more thoughtful and meaningful film than the insanely cool "Drive". While I knew that this film was booed at Cannes I really didn't think much of that. "The Tree of Life" was booed at Cannes so how bad could this film really be? 

Obviously that bad. What this film accomplishes is zero aesthetic, style without a trace of substance and an almost self parody. It is lacking in any form of story, subtext, substance, and any possible thing that could possibly make up for those shortcomings. Winding Refn is clearly a director with stylistic sensibility but seeing cool looking Kubrick-like shots doesn't do anything to possibly make this film masterful. This film is about as far away from the word masterful as you can possibly get.

The story here, as just about everyone knows is nil. All we see through this 89 minute (and far too long at that) film is revenge and then re-revenge and then re-re-revenge all in slow-motion. All without any merit or any sort of weight outside of its cool-lookingness. Gratuitous and pointless revenge carried out by not morally vague characters but one-dimensionally bad characters. This didn't urk me because I didn't have someone to root for, it irked me because I didn't even have anyone interesting to watch. Every character here is horrible and annoying. Even Gosling, who does with his character an almost self-parody.

If it is possible to overstate understating, Gosling does it here. He is so still and so silent that he becomes loud. The mystery that he brought with his Driver character is simply gone. In "Drive" he was calm and cool but in "Only God Forgives" he is over the top in his silence. He comes off as just plain annoying. Not because his character here is not heroic like Driver but because here he shoves his cool and calm self in your face. Kristen Scott Thomas' evil manipulative mother certainly steals every scene she's in because of her huge and insanely intense character. She is the character that you instantly love to hate. Unfortunately though, she is stuck in a movie that doesn't deserve her.

The only thing that made me able to sit through these excruciatingly slow and boring 89 minutes was the hope that somehow it would all come together. That the poorly contrived story and random, senseless acts of brutal violence would somehow mean something greater in the end. The thing is though, it doesn't. Nothing about this film means anything. The violence has absolutely no weight to it what so ever. It isn't there to challenge or hold anything to the audience because it's only there long enough to be cool looking. Something that this movie has too much of for its own good.

I was trying to think that maybe I let my own repulsion get in the way of me somehow missing something great about this film but I'm coming up with absolutely nothing. This film is simply repulsive with absolutely nothing remotely meaningful or artistic to redeem it. I realize that the whole concept of surrealism is based on just immersing the audience in the world and not necessarily having a deep message behind it. I'm totally okay with surrealism but this film doesn't even do that very well. It tries to play the slow-burn game but only comes off as slow and bland. 

I know that majority of Winding Refn puritans are going to love this film for its "beautiful artistry" and some of them will probably unfollow me for not "getting" this film. I honestly wish that I didn't "get" this film and that I missed something brilliant. Federico Fellini said that the best movies are the ones that you don't understand. I would really like to say that I hated this movie but I didn't understand it. But the thing is I did understand it and I do still hate it.

Goodfellas

Goodfellas (1990)

Runtime: 146 minutes

Directed by: Martin Scorsese

Starring: Ray Liotta, Lorraine Bracco, Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Paul Sorvino

From: Warner Brothers

You know, I was thinking of what to watch tonight; I then noticed that I had this movie in my collection and I hadn't seen it in awhile. I thought I had reviewed this before but after a search, I was wrong. I already reviewed it on Letterboxd, just never here... until now. I have seen it a few times before, including once on the big screen, and the movie is still great. I rated it 5 stars out of 5 on Letterboxd; I mention that to demonstrate how highly I rate this.

I doubt I need to say much about the plot, but this is an always engrossing tale based on real life where Henry Hill (Liotta) idolizes the mob family he grew up by in Brooklyn. He decides to join up with them as a teenager and throughout the years you get to see him rise in power with his pals Jimmy Conway (De Niro) and Tommy DeVito (Pesci) but as it typically is for many rich/successful people, drugs was his downfall and there goes the mob family he was in.

No matter how many times I see this, this movie still rules. Just about everything about it is perfect, from the way it's shot, to the plentiful use of music (it's used greatly during the downfall of Hill when he's high on drugs and is having a really bad day; you feel as exhausted and yet amped up to 11 as Hill was at the point), to the classic performances, to the story... even when old Henry treats his wife poorly he's still a compelling character. The fact that there's plenty of narration from Henry and yet that gimmick works for this movie... there isn't much else I can say except that this is a classic and just about all of the lengthy better written articles that talk about why this movie is a classic... you should read those too, and they're right.

Sorry but I am in a rush now or I'd write more. I will be back Monday night as I have a busy weekend ahead of me.

Abduction

Abduction (2011)

4% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 102 reviews)

Runtime: 106 minutes

Directed by: Poor John Singleton

Starring: A piece of cardboard... I mean, Taylor Lautner, Phil Collins' daughter Lily, Alfred Molina, Michael Nyqvist, Sigourney Weaver

From: Lionsgate

Yes, I have who knows how many hundreds of movies that I should watch-including those that I own in person-and yet I picked out something that I was almost positive I thought would be crap. Sometimes, I do enjoy watching something as I figure I will laugh at it and be amused due to its incompetence. This was one of those cases; even before it came out September of '11 there were plenty of people who made fun of it due to its premise and also due to who the lead was... the third wheel in the atrocious Twilight series of movies, an actor who I've never heard anything good about in terms of performance. I have never seen any of the tales of Edward Cullen and Bella Swan (I'd rather drink several bottles of nail polish remover in a row) so I figured this would be the “best” way for me to check out his “acting”.

The plot, stolen from Rotten Tomatoes (but edited): “For as long as he can remember, Nathan Harper (Taylor Lautner) has had the uneasy feeling that he's living someone else's life. When he stumbles upon an image of himself as a little boy on a missing persons website, all of Nathan's darkest fears come true: he realizes his parents are not his own and his life is a lie, carefully fabricated to hide something more mysterious and dangerous than he could have ever imagined. Just as he begins to piece together his true identity, Nathan is targeted by a team of trained killers, forcing him on the run with the only person he can trust, his neighbor, Karen (Lily Collins).”

A great modern version of a classic 70's paranoid thriller, this is not... not by a country mile. What the story is all about is goofy and dumb, but it isn't the worst thing in the world. The way it's presented, though, is not good; things really aren't explained until the very end, so it's just a bunch of random crap happening for a long time. What I've heard is true, Taylor Lautner is a pretty terrible actor. His character was also an asstagonist. At least the movie tried to reach their demographic early on by having Wolf Boy from the Twilight films appear shirtless. Lily Collins isn't great either but she was a newbie at this point and was still better than Mr. Lautner; plus, she isn't bad to look at either... but the story, yeah it ends up being nonsensical with a lot of technology used that seems to be improbable at best, even if used by the likes of the CIA. Yes, the CIA is involved, along with a climax at a Pittsburgh Pirates baseball game, back when that team was still pretty crappy.

The movie isn't really worth seeing, not even for the unintentional humor, such as the villain threatening the hero by saying he'll kill his real-life friends AND the ones on Facebook (really) and a preposterous scene where... well, I'll just blurt it out... some bad guys break into what turns out to be the foster home of Nathan and they kill his parents. Nathan fights back and a villain who is still alive reveals that "there's a bomb in the oven"... and he was right! A bomb that looks like it was ordered by Wile E. Coyote is in there and the bomb blows the house the hell up. The way it's presented, it makes no sense for there to be a bomb at all, unless the villains put a self-imposed time limit on themselves when they should have known that the foster parents had fighting skills and it wouldn't be an easy operation. 

Stupid, this movie is. Don't watch it! At least the famous faces (there's also Maria Bello, Jason Issacs, and Dermot Mulroney) and the director likely received nice paychecks to appear in this dreck, but it doesn't mean you have to watch it.

I'll be back tomorrow afternoon.

Nose Bleeds & More

I'll be back tomorrow afternoon with a proper review, or at least I should; among other things, I am pretty damn tired now and I don't feel like watching anything until later, right before I go to bed and I hopefully feel better. A few hours ago, a rather strange incident happened. I do not remember ever having had a nose bleed before, and yet for some reason I developed one. That was... curious. Eventually it stopped and I ended up feeling back to normal after awhile, but I can not explain why it happened. If it happens again that's when I'll start to worry; for now, I'll chalk it up as something strange and nothing more. At least with the nose bleed thing

Unless I end up so tired I don't feel like watching a damn thing, I should be back tomorrow afternoon with a movie review, and it's a film I am expecting to be terrible so that'll result in some colorful statements from me.

The Man With The Iron Fists: The Unrated Cut

Here is also something I may do once in a blue moon: watch an unrated version of something I had already reviewed for this site if it was more than just an additional minute or two of footage. The unrated Blu-Ray of this movie has about 12 additional minutes of footage. First, the original review from November, in italics:

The Man With The Iron Fists (2012)

55% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 40 reviews)

Runtime: 95 minutes

Directed by: RZA

Starring: RZA, Russell Crowe, Rick Yune, Dave Bautista, Byron Mann

From: Universal

Here is what I did late last night instead of watching the latter half of the election results. I decided to go to the cinema to forget about all of that for a few hours and to try and have a good time. I had heard rather mixed things about this film, and even the people who I suspect would hold the most interest in it had differing opinions. My knowledge of this sort of movie is rather limited as I haven't seen too much in the genre; Lord knows that RZA has like a million times more knowledge of it than I do, so I hope he would deliver something appropriate. To steal a line from somewhere, it was more like a movie you would see in a Grindhouse 2 that will never happen rather than a classic Hong Kong film from the 70's, but...

The plot isn't exactly complex: there are various clans in China in the 19^th century. A bad man known as Silver Lion takes over his Lion clan and they look to hijack a shipment of gold from the Emperor. They try to do it in a small village (Jungle Village... oh-e-oh-e-oh) where RZA is a blacksmith (and yes they actually do explain how he ended up in China), he has a lover (Jamie Chung) and there are other personalities that get involved, including a huge ripped dude with magical powers (Bautista), the head of a brothel (Lucy Liu) and a British soldier (Crowe).

The story is a mess and you can tell RZA is not what you'd call an experienced director at all, this being his first feature film. But, despite its warts, how the action isn't always filmed the best (although thankfully it isn't that shaky-cam crap) and overall it does seem slight and not as awesome as it could have been, I did manage to enjoy this wacky, strange film where judging by the performances and the story they had to be going for camp and silliness. I certainly wasn't bored, which was a complaint I heard on a site. It was so weird, I had no idea what to expect next so that kept my interest. It was a colorful world, for sure, and also a bloody one. You see a #lot# of blood throughout. As others have said, Crowe is the highlight as the brash opium-smoking Jack Knife. Yes, that's what he calls himself. Then again there are people known as Silver Lion and Brass Body, so there you go.

I do not know if I'd recommend seeing this on the big screen in a first-run theatre but maybe it's best for a dollar joint or a Redbox rental. I am glad I did not hate it after some of the bad reviews I heard. Even the odd mix of songs/score work for it for the most part. I could have done without hearing a Kanye West song but that is mostly because I've always thought of him as a loathsome human being. I am surprised a 20 million dollar wacky kung-fu film got made and released by Universal in 2012; that was a ballsy move and I don't know if it'll work out in terms of the box office. I am glad it happened given that most of what the big studios put out I could not care less about.

I'll be back tomorrow night.

The Movie Censorship website does a great breakdown of saying what the differences between the two cuts are, but like they said, the longer version does not change much aside from additional material and more violence; it's only for those people who enjoyed the theatrical version. My opinion is little changed from what I said above in November. The action scenes seemed easier to follow on the small screen, which is good. I rated the theatrical 3 out of 5 stars on Letterboxd and I'd rate the longer version the same.

Actually having seen some Shaw Brothers movies between November and now, what RZA was going for is now more obvious to me. I still say it does not always work but for sheer wackiness and something different, if you enjoy those Shaw Brothers movies of the 70's, martial arts, and/or really bloody action, then you should give it a shot and you might as well see the unrated version as you'll get more of what you'd like.

I'll be back Wednesday night.

Blair Re-Reviews: Drive

Here is something different from me; I may do this once in a blue moon; it certainly won't be a frequent thing. I decided that before I watch the VERY divisive Only God Forgives via On-Demand (Xbox Video, to be specific) I should revisit the previous effort from Refn and Gosling, which I hadn't seen since I watched it on the big screen in the fall of '11. I'll copy and paste below what I had originally written; that'll be in italics. Then, I'll add tonight's thoughts at the bottom.

Drive (2011)

Runtime: 100 minutes

Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Cary Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Ron Perlman, Albert Brooks

From: FilmDistrict

Here’s a movie I’ve been hearing a lot about this month. After some people saw it, they lost their minds and unleashed some rather strong statements about how great the movie was, calling it a classic and that sort of thing. Always a skeptic, I wasn’t sure what to think. I know that I enjoyed the 80’s motif the movie had and what I heard of the soundtrack was awesome, as it was 80’s synth pop and that’s always a good thing.

Last night I finally went and saw the movie to see if the hype was warranted. Before I get to the film itself, I have to mention that I thought I would get to see it with no problem as I went to the local Cineplex which is usually not a busy place; some other people were at the screening also and as it’s Florida, a few of those people were Troglodytes and just acted stupid. I swear that my opinion on the movie was not colored by my less than ideal experience while watching said movie.

To try and be brief, this is about a stunt car driver named Driver (Gosling) who also does some side jobs which could be called less than ethical, although he also works for a mechanic pal (Cranston). He meets up with a neighbor (Mulligan) and her young son. Her jailbird husband (Oscar Issac; for some reason his name is Standard; was he named after Standard Oil?) comes back from prison. He quickly gets himself into trouble so Driver tries to help him out to be nice to his new lady pal and her son. The fit hits the shan, and… but I don’t want to give too much else away, except that some unsavory characters are seen (Perlman and Brooks, both delivering memorable performances).

One thing I can say right away is that everyone there to see the film-me included-were quite surprised at just how violent this was. There are some REALLY graphic moments. From what I could tell, the rest of the crowd did not seem to care for how the movie turned out. Me, I had a more positive view on it although I didn’t find it to be a classic or the best movie of the year or anything of that sort.

What I did like were the performances in general. This is the first movie I’ve seen Gosling in and I was really impressed. He wore an awesome silver scorpion jacket. The story was always interesting throughout. The 80’s synth music (actually modern songs with that particular sound) was tremendous and was an asset to the film. However…

This was artsy-fartsy at times; you know, long takes, silence, and that sort of thing. At times, even I was wondering why it was taking so long to get to the point. Even I was turned off by how graphic some of the scenes were. But it has to be made clear that this is one downbeat and dour tale. I don’t have a problem with that necessarily; it’s just that you should be prepared that this is the sort of story that isn’t cheery and happy. For you Christina Hendricks fans, her role in the movie isn’t as large as her che… er, I mean as large as has been advertised.

I also had some issues with how the last 15 minutes or so turned off; I can’t really explain it without giving away big spoilers; I just thought it wasn’t as good as what preceded it. You should also note that the movie doesn’t have as many car chases as you’d think given the subject matter; it’s a shame, given that what chases you do see are well-done.

So, this isn’t something I disliked by any means. I’m sure this will end up on the list of the 10 best movies I’ve seen this year (if only because I haven’t seen as many movies as others) but this definitely isn’t the best movie I’ve seen all year, like a lot of people are thinking.

I’ll be back Sunday evening with a new review.

Alright, now that I've seen it for a second time... I did not think the movie was as slow as the first time. I was fine with it taking its time and the first hour seemed to fly by. I still dug the performances, the awesome score, and it just looks very pretty, cinematography-wise. It was well filmed in terms of appearance, in other words.  It has a great style. Knowing that there would be bursts of graphic violence, I was fine with that too. However, the reservations I have with how the movie ended are still present. There's just some goofiness that I wish wasn't present, and a shot that is stretched out for reasons unclear to me. While I wish I could love it and give it 5 out of 5 stars at sites like Letterboxd, I suppose I'll have to give it a 4 there, due to the strength of a number of aspects; I just wish I did not have those complaints and I wish those things would have been different.

Oh, and there's the theory that the reason why The Driver says little and acts aloof: he has Asperger Syndrome. When I watched it tonight I looked at it that way... if you don't view the movie in that fashion it does not really change things; I am just saying it is a reasonable explanation as to why Driver acts the way he does. It's more a fun "alternate film theory" than something that I am 100% sure is true.

I'll be back tomorrow night.